My stereo also provokes fights with my wife, so I guess it really is the complete experience.
High Fidelity and Preferences
- Thread starter FrantzM
- Start date
My stereo also provokes fights with my wife, so I guess it really is the complete experience.
F. Toole discusses this aspect with great care in his book "Sound Reproduction".
"One of the common criticisms of recorded music is that it doesn't quite sound like the real thing".
He clearly states that what we hear is only representative of what we hear in real life, not identical.
As he says - "it can sound good, but it can not sound the same" .
And then he needs many interesting chapters to explain how, using our memories of the real thing, the help of audio equipment and our room we fool ourselves!
as many have already pointed out; really there is no clear standard for recording which is precise and universal. at best we have a 'fuzzy' kinda target to aim at. open to interpretation as to the prioroties. i don't think listening to live music is the end-all for judgeing system performance. it's one data point, important but not really representative with the original recording vision of the mastering/mixing engineer.....who's product we are attempting to replicate.
so then how can we 'be in a bad place' as Frantz proposes when we pursue high fidelity?
the answer is that we must rely on our own sensibilities to determine where 'good enough' is in terms of high fidelity. the best balance of sonics, budget, space, comfort.
if we believe it's high fidelity then it is....based on our experience.
when our reproduction reference changes, our ability to achieve that might too.
that is certainly been how it's worked for me. when i hear something (in a reproduction system) that takes me further, i then have the vision to go there.
so then how can we 'be in a bad place' as Frantz proposes when we pursue high fidelity?
the answer is that we must rely on our own sensibilities to determine where 'good enough' is in terms of high fidelity. the best balance of sonics, budget, space, comfort.
if we believe it's high fidelity then it is....based on our experience.
when our reproduction reference changes, our ability to achieve that might too.
that is certainly been how it's worked for me. when i hear something (in a reproduction system) that takes me further, i then have the vision to go there.
Interesting thread to which I can unfortunately (or more likely fortunately) contribute little. I'll throw out a few off-the-cuff/wall comments:
1. Having attended and performed at many live events, live sound from my recordings is not usually my goal. Sometimes I just prefer my comfortable illusions, from how the hall really sounds to the magic of dubbing that lets me fix that dratted missed opening note in my solo...
2. One of the popular sayings among trumpet players/teachers is "paralysis by analysis". It happens when you forget about the music and worry about the details and the mechanics to the point that nothing musical happens - you are paralyzed. I see certain parallels here, maybe just me...
3. Recording engineers come in many flavors, and are sometimes driven by their clients. You will not always (not even usually) find a dry recording using the flattest mics; more often, the mic is chosen for its pleasing sound (read "coloration"), the lead guitar wants his effects in the tracks as they are laid down, etc.
4. In my experience, to many audiophiles, accuracy and precision have little relation to what they regard as "good sound". N.B. There is nothing wrong with this!
5. Most published component specs tell very little about how things will sound in your room. It's not that we can't measure more, but there is simply little request for more specs, and few would be the audiophiles who would understand them if they were provided. Again, this is not bad, just means we still have to listen, not go by the data sheet (specs).
FWIWFM - Don
1. Having attended and performed at many live events, live sound from my recordings is not usually my goal. Sometimes I just prefer my comfortable illusions, from how the hall really sounds to the magic of dubbing that lets me fix that dratted missed opening note in my solo...
2. One of the popular sayings among trumpet players/teachers is "paralysis by analysis". It happens when you forget about the music and worry about the details and the mechanics to the point that nothing musical happens - you are paralyzed. I see certain parallels here, maybe just me...
3. Recording engineers come in many flavors, and are sometimes driven by their clients. You will not always (not even usually) find a dry recording using the flattest mics; more often, the mic is chosen for its pleasing sound (read "coloration"), the lead guitar wants his effects in the tracks as they are laid down, etc.
4. In my experience, to many audiophiles, accuracy and precision have little relation to what they regard as "good sound". N.B. There is nothing wrong with this!
5. Most published component specs tell very little about how things will sound in your room. It's not that we can't measure more, but there is simply little request for more specs, and few would be the audiophiles who would understand them if they were provided. Again, this is not bad, just means we still have to listen, not go by the data sheet (specs).
FWIWFM - Don
Fair enough comment. What I'm distinguishing is the difference between allowing your ear/brain to generate an illusion in your mind that makes you FEEL you are listening to the real event, versus how it would have sounded to you in the recording studio, in the room with the performers. Of course, the latter is a complete fiction anyway for many recordings, by the very nature of how the recording was made.
Even for the recording of a string quartet I am sure there would be differences, just because of the distortions of the microphone, recording gear, etc.
Frank
Everybody on this board has a different system. Probably every body would agree each system sounds distinctly different from the other. Therefore, it is unlikely that any of them sound like the original performance.
Given the additional blurring lenses of recording techniques and the commercial interests of recording engineers and their machinations, then the goal of achieving the original performance is necessarily delusional.
A lot of musicians will complain that stereo systems, in the studio or out, do not properly render the quality of their instruments or performance.
Stereo systems are like different player pianos playing the same piano roll . Whether you like or not, you are hearing the player piano modulated by the recording at best.
It may be an ugly and unpleasant fact, but ultimately it is about preference whether one likes it or not. I would call "reality" a simply delusionary preference bordering on pretense rather than an ideal. If you call your system's rendering more or less "real to the original performance," you are simply fooling yourself and attempting to drag others into your world. You have absolutely no basis for making such a judgment.
Making a statement that "my system sounds like real horns, pianos, violins etc. that I have heard in such and such a venue in the past and am now recalling through auditory memory" does not wash, since you are merely stating that something you know nothing about sounds like something you claim to remember. You are claiming a perfect aural memory attached to an unknowable entity that allows you to judge it in some absolute sense. I wouldn't call that an ideal.
Does that mean a good stereo system cannot have many characteristics of real music and instruments? Not at all, but that is an entirely different thing from stating that there is an absolute sound.
Many of the features of stereo systems are necessarily artistically rendered and have nothing to do with an opaque original performance or its venue. This doe not reduce my enjoyment a whit.
Does that mean that one cannot have a meaningful experience, touching on the artistic intent of the original performance? No.
However, my own goal is to make the presentation as involving as possible, so that I continue to listen and reap the pleasure and benefits of the performances. That means that I follow a meaningful preference rather than an invisible and inaccessible "reality."
Given the additional blurring lenses of recording techniques and the commercial interests of recording engineers and their machinations, then the goal of achieving the original performance is necessarily delusional.
A lot of musicians will complain that stereo systems, in the studio or out, do not properly render the quality of their instruments or performance.
Stereo systems are like different player pianos playing the same piano roll . Whether you like or not, you are hearing the player piano modulated by the recording at best.
It may be an ugly and unpleasant fact, but ultimately it is about preference whether one likes it or not. I would call "reality" a simply delusionary preference bordering on pretense rather than an ideal. If you call your system's rendering more or less "real to the original performance," you are simply fooling yourself and attempting to drag others into your world. You have absolutely no basis for making such a judgment.
Making a statement that "my system sounds like real horns, pianos, violins etc. that I have heard in such and such a venue in the past and am now recalling through auditory memory" does not wash, since you are merely stating that something you know nothing about sounds like something you claim to remember. You are claiming a perfect aural memory attached to an unknowable entity that allows you to judge it in some absolute sense. I wouldn't call that an ideal.
Does that mean a good stereo system cannot have many characteristics of real music and instruments? Not at all, but that is an entirely different thing from stating that there is an absolute sound.
Many of the features of stereo systems are necessarily artistically rendered and have nothing to do with an opaque original performance or its venue. This doe not reduce my enjoyment a whit.
Does that mean that one cannot have a meaningful experience, touching on the artistic intent of the original performance? No.
However, my own goal is to make the presentation as involving as possible, so that I continue to listen and reap the pleasure and benefits of the performances. That means that I follow a meaningful preference rather than an invisible and inaccessible "reality."
Most musicians I know are not great at analyzing systems. They are more likely to critique the third not quite low enough in the chord than distinguish among different components... They (we) have great ears, we just listen for something different. As I have said before, as I get older and have returned to making music instead of just hearing it, I am getting more satisfaction out of listening to my music than trying to find issues with my system.
I heartily agree with your last line:
YMMV - Don
I heartily agree with your last line:
YMMV - Don
Also agree, except I go further than most in saying that the illusion can be made to have such qualities that all recordings transcend their limitations, in allowing the mind to indulge in a fantasy of a convincing musical event, without effort.
Frank
If it is a drug!
Perhaps that is what the audiophile of the future will do, fire up the relatively inexpensive system, take a you are there pill, and bam! you are there!
Perhaps an idea for a new "tweak" lets call the little pills, "mind tweak"
Tom
Didn't we already do that in the '60s?
arhhhriiighttt ...
"indulge in a fantasy" may have been a bit strong, just trying to convey the ease of tuning into the experience, as compared with the effort people seem to go through with their "zoning", ably assisted by that other key drug, in a tall bottle ...
Frank
Writing and performing music is a creative process. Recording, mixing and mastering is as well. What some Fidelity adherents sometimes forget is that playback is too.
Personally I would never want to be cut out of the process.
BTW A pill exists but it is a Class 1 drug. Side effects are not worth the trouble and neither is the jail time. Tall bottles and LSD don't compare I've been told. I'm not sure if I can take this type of anecdotal evidence as fact however because from what I can remember the people who tried it couldn't remember where they parked the night in question.
Personally I would never want to be cut out of the process.
BTW A pill exists but it is a Class 1 drug. Side effects are not worth the trouble and neither is the jail time. Tall bottles and LSD don't compare I've been told. I'm not sure if I can take this type of anecdotal evidence as fact however because from what I can remember the people who tried it couldn't remember where they parked the night in question.
Similar threads
- Locked
